Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Likok Pulo


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Likok Pulo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notability, no sources. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably Keep If some information can be provided about this dance it should be notable enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why I nominate it: I couldn't find any information. I just said that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had waited a few minutes between the WP:PROD tag being contested and nominating this here you would have seen that someone else could find an entry in a print encyclopedia for this subject, proving that it is regarded by the outside world as an encyclopedic topic. Why this constant hurry to disrupt others' efforts to build this encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We now have a reference from an Indonesian encyclopedia. A Google search shows many photos, videos and discussions of this dance.  I feel certain that an editor fluent in Indonesian languages could expand and reference the article.  I wonder how Ten Pound Hammer could find nothing, when information about this dance gushed out of my smart phone in seconds? Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep -The encyclopedia entry would indicate that there is liekly more non-english sources to be had. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.